Screw this...

[Ross Mead]

Eh, it's just a fact of life.

A fact... really? :-?

When they stop building weapons, we can stop building weapons.

Isn't this circular?  Couldn't they use the same argument against us?  Who takes the first step?

Not much to do about it

Why not take the first step ourselves?

It's pretty much the same thing that has always been happening in nature: survival of the fittest.

Agreed.  However, recall that "fittest" can refer not only to physical superiority, but intellectual superiority.  Can we not flex our mental muscle and realize that there is a better way to approach our conflicts?

humans do not like killing other humans.

Again, agreed.  However, I argue that we would be entering an era where it's not really humans killing other humans (in the sense that they are not physically pulling the trigger), but rather robots "killing" other robots.  As I premised my argument before (and feel free to debate this), what happens when one group of robots eradicates the other group and must now move on?  What are they moving on to?  People, right?  So now robots are killing humans, defeating the original "humans do not like killing other humans" idea.  To nullify this statement entirely, look at the state of the world right now: humans are killing other humans.

I'm sure that most of us would like to believe that your premise is true (honestly, I hope that you are right about "humans do not like killing other humans" because I truly believe it), but no one seems to be stepping forward with a giant STOP-sign to show it.  Whose duty is it to take the initiative and actually "play nice"?  This role hasn't been assigned to anyone, and isn't yet recognized by many.  Like I said before, why not take the first step ourselves?

[William Grim]

A fact... really?

Uh, do you pay attention to ANY news?  Yes, it's a fact of life.

Isn't this circular? Couldn't they use the same argument against us?

Yes, they can and do use the same argument against us.  Hence it being a fact of life.

Why not take the first step ourselves?

Go create the most powerful nation in the world and let me know what happens when the jealous ones invade.  I'll be here saying "I told you so."

Agreed. However, recall that "fittest" can refer not only to physical superiority, but intellectual superiority. Can we not flex our mental muscle and realize that there is a better way to approach our conflicts?

We already do use intellectual power to try to resolve many conflicts, president Bush aside.  But you know what?  We still go to war even when we have presidents who usually try to use diplomacy.  Many factors are involved, and I'm not going to debate them.

what happens when one group of robots eradicates the other group and must now move on? What are they moving on to? People, right?

If robots destroyed the mythical robotic army and attacked the land of the real people, so what?  Someone gave the order and will have to deal with the psychological consequences.  People just aren't going to want to give that order for just any reason as you seem to suggest.

Really, I'm done debating this now, because you live in a fantasy land of good people that don't kill each other.  Even the people who try to be good and not kill one another still have to do it sometimes.  We need weapons to protect ourselves.

Go ahead and continue to debate this.  I'll be doing more important things like working, going to school, having a life, and maybe even someday building weapons if the need arises.  Because I know that protecting life is better than destroying it, even if protecting life sometimes means that destroying parts of it is the only option.  Now I can just see you debating that.. haha, that'll be great.  Now we can just argue that we didn't need to fight in WW2 because we should've been diplomatic about it... oh wait, we were until we got our asses handed to us at Pearl Harbor.

Let me know when Fantasy Earth is born.

/me logs out of this thread forever.

[DaleDoe]

In light of the recently signed "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007", this becomes an even more scary scenario (though certainly more remote) if these devices were used against a country's own citizens.

That act allows the president without anyone else's consent to declare martial law in the event of a "public emergency" and station military troops within the country "in order to suppress, in any State, any domestic violence or conspiracy."

Previously, it had been illegal for the government to use the military as law enforcement (Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807).

Sources:
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_184/talkingpoint.html
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_95980.asp
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=25276

[Sam Seavey]

I think this defense system would actually save lives.  I mean...it tells ya that if you keep coming it will shoot you in the head.  Hmm... I think I will keep going and get shot in the head  :-P

Also, if people know you have a burglar alarm, they are much less likely to even bother trying to break in.  I mean, if I had a pistol and the other guy had a tank... I'm no hero ya know?  A good show of superior strength will prevent MOST people from attacking.

Now, there are some people who ARE fanatics that will do everything in there power to kill someone despite any attempts to reason.  One good example is the radical muslim extremists.  You cannot out reason a fanatical hate for someone...it has been too deeply burned into them.  Fanatical religious fervor CANNOT be reasoned with.  People have been trying for years to convince religious people that there is no God...it hasn't work yet and it never will.  The ONLY defense against radical extremists is an outright offense.  And these future robotanks would keep the good people safe at home and the bad people either away or dead.  

Sorry for getting a little off topic ... but there ARE GOOD applications of robo machine guns  :-P

[DaleDoe]

M-Rooster said:
The ONLY defense against radical extremists is an outright offense.

The problem is that each one you kill has 3 brothers and 7 cousins who have nothing to lose.

[Ross Mead]

Uh, do you pay attention to ANY news? Yes, it's a fact of life.

[sarcasm]
Unfortunately, I haven't been keeping track--are they reporting the facts now?
[/sarcasm]

Yes, they can and do use the same argument against us. Hence it being a fact of life.

If this is regarding me saying that the argument is circular, then it does not follow that this is a "fact of life."  If anyone would like to see proof of this, consider a majority of the arguments for the existence of a higher being (be it religious or philosophical); these are most often circular, and we have yet to acknowledge them as fact.

Go create the most powerful nation in the world and let me know what happens when the jealous ones invade.

Currently, we are the most powerful nation in the world.  Following your argument, I agree that, if we were to just stand down, we would most likely be invaded (eventually).  However, this is due to our inability to "play nice" in the past and present; we often give deliberate reason for people to be jealous and resentful.  We all have been taught the Golden Rule since grade school: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  As we become older, I think we all forget this.  Just think, if a single person is nice to you, shares with you, and tries to help you whenever they can, do you ever really feel jealous or resentful of them?  I believe that if we begin to work together with other countries (through compromise rather than threats), we may be able to make up for the bad impression we've made in the past.  It would take time, but I think that it would be beneficial for everyone in the end.

We already do use intellectual power to try to resolve many conflicts.  But you know what? We still go to war even when we have presidents who usually try to use diplomacy.

We go to war when people get impatient; diplomacy takes time, and in that situation, someone jumped the gun.  I did feel like something needed to be done, but I don't feel that the way we approached it was right.  When the lines of [quality] communication are broken, the opportunity for compromise closes and diplomacy fails.  With recent events, we threw in the towel.

Go ahead and continue to debate this. I'll be doing more important things like working, going to school, [and] having a life.

LOL!  Ouch!  grimw  Q-Bit

Because I know that protecting life is better than destroying it, even if protecting life sometimes means that destroying parts of it is the only option. Now I can just see you debating that.. haha, that'll be great.

Woah there, Machiavelli!  Why should I argue when my good friends Kant, Locke, and Rawls can do it for me! :-P   We have here the age-old question, "Do the ends justify the means?"  Anyone familiar with this knows why I'm not going to go down this long road! :lol:

Really, I'm done debating this now

And this is where all of my arguments will continue to fail.  grimw, by becoming impatient with me, by breaking the lines of [quality] communication, and by throwing in the towel, you have generated a self-fulfilling prophecy that proves your point perfectly.  I can only ask you to refute me and, thus, keep the lines of communication going.  I'll take the first step--my guns are down; I'm not on offense or defense.  I'm trying to compromise with you in the interest of the problem.

[Y]ou live in a fantasy land...

If you return grimw, you know where to find me: I'll be in the Lollipop Forest riding my unicorn.  Come on, Princess... :lol:

[Shaun Martin]

Hi, my name is Ross Mead and I've just proven that I am the biggest nerd in CAOS.

And, I have way too much time on my hands.

[Ross Mead]

Hi, my name is Ross Mead and I've just proven that I am the biggest nerd in CAOS.

**pushes glasses closer to face**

[sarcasm]
Now martins, I know you haven't been around long, but we've had serious conflicts with people being called "nerd" (as opposed to "geek").  Nowadays, it is good to be PC when referring to people.  Please read up on the following thread (posted far before your time): Detrimental Generalizations: Geek and Nerd.
[/sarcasm]

LOL! :lol:

^ (it's actually a pretty funny read and is worth revisiting; you should check it out! :-) )

[Shaun Martin]

Look, I'm just trying to farm your thread.  I'll be honest.  

[Nathan]

*clap*  *clap*  *clap*

Wow! Lively discussion. I thinks some good arguments have been made on all sides. I thought I'd throw in a few cents.

First of all, Ross, God is not a religious or philosophical higher being, He is God. He is sovereign over all and His existence
is not dependant on our being able to fully understand or describe Him, let alone argue for His existence. If someone can convince
a person to believe in God, another can convince that person not to. Knowledge of God can only come from God Himself, He takes
the first step in revealing Himself to us.

That aside, I think we can all agree that war is bad, to say the least, and to be avoided to whatever extent is possible. However,
it is, at times, an unfortunate necessity. Since we live in a fallen world, there will always be fighting, and world peace is, unfortunately,
not possible. To think otherwise would be to submit to a naive and idealistic utopian view which is incompatible with the sinful nature of
man, or human nature, as some would say.

"In theory, communism works. In theory!" ~Homer Simpson

That being said, Mattguy made a good point. We should concentrate more on defense, although not exclusively. If our enemies
are building sentry guns, we should research EMP cannons.

I will say, however, that, if we had not attempted to be on the forefront of destructive weapon research during World War II,
the results may have been disastrous. The atomic bomb was going to be invented, and while I loathe the ramifications of that
invention, as well as so many others, I am still glad that we reached it first.

I do understand and heartily aggree with Ross' initial objection, that, with so many promising outlets for technological research which
are non-destructive, these are among the most pursued. I again say that, if the research is to be militarily driven, it should be driven
in the direction of defensive and non-lethal offensive technology. If we can incapacitate hostiles without killing, we are, in some ways,
satisfying both sides of the arguement here.

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Ross Mead]

Wow! Lively discussion.

I know!  I didn't see it getting this much attention, but it's awesome! :-)

God is not a religious or philosophical higher being

It was not my intention to turn this into a creationist debate (though I would be interested to see this from the perspective of various people of faith); however, I do feel the need to clarify my statement.  I spent a decent amount of time trying to choose my words carefully to best represent a large population of beliefs while not offending anyone.  I was simply referring to any creation story (be it Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, evolution, physics, various philosophies, magical elves and unicorns, ...); any argument made is often (but not always), and unavoidably, circular, and thus comes down to a matter of [respectable] faith.  I apologize for any confusion and/or offense.

To think otherwise would be to submit to a naive and idealistic utopian view which is incompatible with the sinful nature of man, or human nature, as some would say.

Hobbes would agree with you.  My beliefs, admittedly, reflect that of idealism, though I would still call myself a realist.  I don't disagree with the reality of the points that BlueJoe or grimw have made, rather, I argue that there are still better ways of approaching our problems and that these idealistic point of views (heck, even communism... though I, admittedly, agree with Homer! :-P ) could serve as models for us to strive for; we may never reach a truly utopian state, but we can try to take steps in its direction.

We should concentrate more on defense, although not exclusively. If our enemies are building sentry guns, we should research EMP cannons.

So, let me get this straight: we're going to focus on defense and, because "our enemies are building sentry guns", they must be focusing on defense to.  But, because we are not "exclusively" focusing on defense, we research "EMP cannons" to thwart their "sentry guns"--and let's say that we succeed!  Then they come up with some "anti-EMP sentry guns" or something.  You can see how this pattern repeats.  However, as I've understood your stance, we are not in a state of fighting though, correct?  If that's the case, then why are we spending all of these resources trying to counter each other?  If we work towards maintaining the peace (and researching things that could mutually benefit everyone!), we would never have to create such tools.  If we create these tools, they serve no purpose if they are not being used.  What happens?  We, inevitably, use the tools.

If we can incapacitate hostiles without killing, we are, in some ways, satisfying both sides of the [argument] here.

I think this would be a step in the right direction; we are so deep in conflict that we would have to take small steps such as this.  I agree with grimw that, if we were to simply drop our weapons and say, "Heh, sorry... ," someone would most likely invade.  It will take time, but it will be mutually beneficial for everyone in the end.

[William Grim]

I made some macaroni & cheese tonight, and it was NOT very good.

If this is regarding me saying that the argument is circular, then it does not follow that this is a "fact of life."

Yeah, except war IS a fact of life, whether you believe it or not.  Step into Africa and let me know that war is not a fact of life.  Step into NK and let me know that war is not a fact of life.  It will continue to be a fact of life until we can have peace on earth, but considering too many people disagree with too many other people, war will continue to be a fact of life.

You have generated a self-fulfilling prophecy that proves your point perfectly.

Really?  A self-fulfilling prophecy would more likely be having a fight with you to prove my point about war.  I didn't see me do that.

Oh, I also like your name dropping.  What was that called in philosophy again oh grand minorer in philosophy?  I can't remember the name, but the point was that it doesn't elevate your status in the argument.

Good day all, I'm off to NYC!

P.S. I made my macaroni & cheese with sharp edges so that anyone would die that tried to steal it from me.  However, upon further reflection about the bad taste of the food, I decided to remove the edges and just give it to someone and prove to them just how dangerous my bad-tasting recipe was.

P.P.S. The more important question to be asking is how do we build pleasure bots with 100% realistic stimuli?!

[Ross Mead]

I made some macaroni & cheese tonight, and it was NOT very good.

Any leftovers?  I'm a mac' & cheese fiend; I'll take what I can get! :-D

[William Grim]

Any leftovers? I'm a mac' & cheese fiend; I'll take what I can get!

No, I trashed them.  I can't bestow that kind of nastiness on anyone.

[DaleDoe]

Q-Bit said:
Currently, we are the most powerful nation in the world. Following your argument, I agree that, if we were to just stand down, we would most likely be invaded (eventually). However, this is due to our inability to "play nice" in the past and present; we often give deliberate reason for people to be jealous and resentful.

Somebody that understands!  If we don't go around the world pissing people off (pretty-much like we have since the end of WW2), we don't give people nearly so much reason to hate us.  Not that this means we can completely disarm ourselves, but we wouldn't have nearly so many wars.  (how many wars has Switzerland had recently?)  Name the wars since WW2 in which we went to war to defend ourselves.  The only one I can think of off the top of my head is possibly Afghanistan (out of how many wars and "police actions" and invasions?), and though I will not attempt to justify or defend Bin Laden, we wouldn't have gotten involved with him in the first place if we 1)weren't using him as a hedge against Russia in the 80's and 2)hadn't invaded Iraq the first time or probably just 3)got our military out of Saudi Arabia at the end of the first Iraq war.

If you want to know what exactly we've done around the world to piss off most of the Mid-East, Africa, and South America, read something by Noam Chomsky.  I'm not saying Chomsky isn't biased or one-sided, but his facts tend to be well-researched.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not America-bashing.  I love this country.    It's just that our foreign policy of the last 60 years has been so selfish and short-sighted.  Do any of you know how many popularly-elected governments we've helped to overthrow (that is, provide funding, weapons, and military training for the purpose of said overthrow) in South America in the late '70s and early 80's?  I don't have an exact number, but several.  Do you know what we supported in place of the popularly-elected governments?  Bloody dictatorships.  (I'm not British, by bloody I mean they murdered any suspected opposition).  Now, we invade countries and overthrow governments to "spread democracy".  I call bull.  If our goal were to forcibly spread democracy around the world, we would be at war with much of it.  Including many of our "allies".

I know it isn't true, but sometimes I think like George Carlin that we just go to war to "play with our toys in the sand".